From 463f9092809df7e2f76479ee2217078bdaee2692 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jaron Kent-Dobias <jaron@kent-dobias.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:31:45 +0100
Subject: Some condesing of the language.

---
 response.tex | 42 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

(limited to 'response.tex')

diff --git a/response.tex b/response.tex
index 13c220f..4addddf 100644
--- a/response.tex
+++ b/response.tex
@@ -61,27 +61,21 @@ barrier crossing (which barriers?) \footfullcite{Ros_2019_Complexity, Ros_2021_D
 \end{quote}
 
 Both referees find that our paper is clearly written but technical, and
-that its topic of "the different RSB schemes" are not suitable for a
+that its topic of ``the different RSB schemes'' are not suitable for a
 broad audience. This is surprising to the authors, since a quick
 search on Google Scholar reveals several recent PRLs with heavy use of
 RSB schemes. 
 
-We would also like to submit to the referees  that it is somewhat
-incongruous that the solution to a problem that had remained open for 42 years -- during which it was always present in articles in PRL and PRX -- is rejected
-because  it demands of the readers a slightly longer attention span. 
-
-
-
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-  \item PRL has been publishing articles on precisely this problem in the
-    last 30 years.\footfullcite{Fyodorov_2004_Complexity, Bray_2007_Statistics, Fyodorov_2012_Critical, Wainrib_2013_Topological, Dennis_2020_Jamming}
-  \item These works were often limited by the fact that general landscapes (for
-    which an annealed solution is not exact) were inaccessible. It is perhaps
-    true that the final solution of an open problem may often be more technical
-    than the previous ones.
-\end{enumerate}
-
+We would also like to submit to the referees  that it is somewhat incongruous
+that the solution to a problem that had remained open for 42 years -- during
+which it was always present in articles in PRL
+\footfullcite{Fyodorov_2004_Complexity, Bray_2007_Statistics,
+Fyodorov_2012_Critical, Wainrib_2013_Topological, Dennis_2020_Jamming}-- is
+rejected because  it demands of the readers a slightly longer attention span.
+These previous works were often limited by the fact that general landscapes
+(for which an annealed solution is not exact) were inaccessible. It is perhaps
+true that the final solution of an open problem may often be more technical
+than the previous ones.
 
 
 Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
@@ -113,7 +107,7 @@ Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
      for group of experts and I do not assess the finding that the
      complexity of mixed p-spin glass models shows RSB as a major
      breakthrough in the field. Therefore, the manuscript is not suitable
-     for publication in Phys. Rev. Lett., and the publication of the
+     for publication in Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., and the publication of the
      accompanying longer paper, submitted to PRE, is sufficient to
      disseminate the results summarized in this manuscript.
 \end{quote}
@@ -122,9 +116,9 @@ Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
 Referee A correctly points out that one new feature of the solutions
 outlined in our manuscript is that RSB must occur in parts of the
 phase diagram for these models. However, they neglect another feature:
-that they are the solutions of the *quenched* complexity, which has
+that they are the solutions of the \textit{quenched} complexity, which has
 not been correctly calculated until now. We agree with the referee
-that "the complexity of the mixed p-spin glass models" is not a major
+that ``the complexity of the mixed p-spin glass models'' is not a major
 breakthrough in and of itself, we just
 chose to demonstrate  the problem in simplest toy model. But believe that the technique for
 computing the quenched complexity is a major breakthrough  
@@ -162,9 +156,9 @@ with dynamics (for example in Sherrington Kirkpatrick) if it is unknown}.
    }
 \end{quote}
 
-Concerning the statement of Referee B that "the only novelty
+Concerning the statement of Referee B that ``the only novelty
 with respect to previous work is that the results are obtained at zero
-temperature", we do not know what to make of the referee's statement.
+temperature,'' we do not know what to make of the referee's statement.
 The novelty of the paper is most definitely
 not the fact of treating a zero temperature case. 
 We have added the following phrase, that should clarify the situation:
@@ -175,8 +169,8 @@ more appropriate. From the technical point of view, this makes no fundamental di
 to apply the same computation to the Thouless-Andreson-Palmer  (TAP) free energy, \footfullcite{Crisanti_1995_Thouless-Anderson-Palmer} instead of the energy. We do not expect new features or technical 
 complications arise.
 
-We agree with Referee B's assessment of "essential open problems in
-the field," and agree that our work does not deliver answers. However,
+We agree with Referee B's assessment of ``essential open problems in
+the field,'' and agree that our work does not deliver answers. However,
 delivering answers for all essential open problems is not the acceptance
 criterion of PRL. These are
 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2

